Windows 8, the post-PC world, and Linux: Microsoft will prevail

Op-ed: An opening for Linux? A herald of the end of the PC? No, and no.

Since the very first reveal of Windows 8, some critics have called the operating system a fatal move for Microsoft. They call it a blunder so large in its abandonment of Windows' heritage that it has created an opportunity for other operating systems to rise up and seize large portions of Windows' customer base in the consumer and enterprise markets. Others see Windows 8 as a sign that Microsoft is grasping for relevance in a world where Windows and the PC itself are waning. In this view, the once-mighty "Wintel" platform is already dead—it just doesn’t know it yet.

Both sets of critics are wrong—or, at best, only half right. Windows 8 does create a huge opportunity for another desktop operating system to finally achieve total domination of the desktop and laptop markets, but that operating system is Windows 7. Sure, Windows 8 won't take the crown itself. But it has a slew of features that at least make its next major revision the heir apparent, not just to the desktop world but to a much more complicated computing kingdom. Even if one argues that Windows 8 is a hot mess of a user experience, it's still breaking the trail for what comes next.

But it is Windows 7 that will see the biggest effect from Windows 8, and not just because some may find Windows 8 jarring. It's common in IT planning to run a generation behind, particularly on Microsoft products with long support lifecycles. Windows 7 will have extended support until January of 2020. Consumer sales can and will adjust accordingly. If Windows 8 becomes an impediment to consumer purchases, retailers and OEMs will opt for Windows 7.

I am not a Windows fanboy. I'm a realist. And the reality is that as much as people talk about the future of "bring your own device" and always-connected tablets, the PC is not dead—it's just changing shape, size, and location. It's an attractive idea: we'll all soon be working on Android 12 powered 64-core compute sticks connected to Google Glass in an office that looks like something out of Minority Report. But I'm betting Windows will still be here, and copies of Windows XP will still be running on 10 percent of all computers on the planet for the next several years.

Of course, there are many other points of contention over the future of Windows. I'm only addressing two of the most common arguments for Microsoft's impending demise here. But many of the flaws in these two points of view apply more broadly to dispelling prophesies of Windows' doom.

The case for/against Linux on the desktop

First, let's address the idea that the Linux desktop's time is now. It's an easy kill, honestly—despite the ever-improving functionality of distributions such as Ubuntu, they hardly show up as a blip in global operating system market share statistics. Linux accounts for just 1.1 percent of the desktop operating systems in the world, based on statistics from NetMarketshare. By comparison, Windows systems own 91 percent of the market worldwide; OS X has 7 percent.

Now, a big chunk of that Windows market share—anywhere from a third to almost half—is Windows XP. And, the reasoning goes, with XP now at the end of its support life, those XP users have to go somewhere. Why not to Linux?

The main reason Linux-on-the-desktop supporters believe that Linux is a better migration path for Windows XP users than Windows 8 boils down to this argument:

Windows 8 changes the whole user interface

The changes will upset lots of users

Linux is good enough, costs less to acquire, and is possibly slightly less upsetting to move to than Windows 8

Ergo, Linux is a better migration path than Windows 8

Naturally, there's more to it. Canonical in particular is pressing the case for Ubuntu as an alternative to Windows 8 based on its usability (similar to Windows in terms of a basic user experience, sort of), its less complex licensing scheme (free, with paid support—or no support at all), the reduced need to refresh desktop hardware, and the maturity of open-source desktop applications like LibreOffice. And Canonical offers a commercial provisioning and administration tool, Landscape, that can do things sort of like what Microsoft's administrative tools do.

All of that sounds pretty reasonable—but it's premised on the wrong set of assumptions. In my view:

Yes, Windows 8 is quite different, but Linux is still more different

No matter how painful moving to Windows 8 may be, it still runs Windows software and admin tools; changing those will hurt most people (and most IT shops) more than dealing with the new Start screen

Windows 8 isn't really the competition anyway—Windows 7 is

That last point is key. Honestly, those individuals and businesses on Windows XP are not exactly the types to jump into an X.0 release of anything, let alone move to Linux. Several US government agencies are now in the middle of massive migrations to Windows 7, finally moving off their well-worn images of XP. They're at least five years from moving to anything newer.

Others still running XP on PCs and PC-based devices at home or in a business likely haven't upgraded by now for one of the following reasons: they're supporting a very specific application that hasn't been certified for Windows 7; they have been very carefully planning a migration to Windows 7; they have no interest in upgrading the operating system until they absolutely, positively are forced to at gunpoint; or they are running pirated copies of Windows XP and don't really care.

These are not the kinds of people who are going to download and install Ubuntu in significant numbers. They're more likely to buy a $70 Android tablet... which brings me to the other popular reason some people say Windows is doomed.

The "post-PC" straw man

This second argument, most recently voiced by Robert Cringely, is that the whole Windows ecosystem is doomed by the decline of the desktop. Because people are buying fewer desktop PCs and more mobile devices, he argued, the desktop is in decline. And that is Microsoft's star. "Six years from now, Windows will be dead," Cringely declared. Also, Office will be dead, too; by putting Office on Windows RT for free (but not really), Cringely saw a Microsoft admission that Office has no long-term value in itself. The future belongs to tablets. Something like that.

Yes, a lot can happen in six years. But arguing that we are entering a post-PC world misses the fact that the PC isn't dying—it's just changing shape. While the Surface and Windows 8 may be a less-than-perfect first effort, there are a number of things about Windows 8 that suggest Windows has a lot more life in it.

PC sales have indeed slowed. In 2012, they're projected by IHS iSuppli to be down by 1.2 percent, reaching 348.7 million PCs shipped (down from 352.8 million in 2011). Smartphone sales passed PCs in 2010, and sales of tablets such as the iPad, Nexus 7, and others are expected to reach 124 million for the year.

You might say that's a sign tablets are on the rise and PCs are on the decline. But the truth is more complicated. The PC upgrade cycle in IT and at home has slowed. That's due in part to the recession, but also due to the end of the megahertz myth. PCs that are six years old are actually still quite capable these days for business and basic computing tasks. At the same time, however, tablets are making year-over-year performance gains that are highly valued by users, and that drives sales. All the while, PCs and tablets are converging, and the likely future is that the two form factors will meet in the middle and become one and the same. Microsoft is betting the “smart-phonification” of Windows in Windows 8 will put it in a position to rule that merged market.

This same trend happened with desktop PCs and notebooks—a decade ago they were considered separate market segments. In the time since, notebook computers have become as powerful as most desktops, and in many cases have supplanted them—but they are still PCs. Tablets are another step down the same path, and Microsoft is counting on tablets needing to have the same power as notebooks (and desktops) even as the model for deploying and using applications changes.

Windows 8 might be a half-step toward a tablet-driven world. It might be less elegant than iOS and less trim than Android. But it is also a more effective bridging of the universes of fat client and thin client, of PC and cloud. Office 365 and Office 2013 layer upon that blending, blurring the distinction between what’s running locally and what runs in the cloud while still giving users the choice of working offline.

Microsoft isn’t the only one making this bet. Apple keeps making its Mac OS X interface look more like iOS—as evidenced by the Launchpad interface, full-screen applications, and multi-touch gesture support in Lion and Mountain Lion. Google Apps and Google Drive, as well as Apple’s iCloud services, are increasingly about not abandoning the thick client metaphor but providing tighter integration between thick client power and cloud-connected services.

As much as the iPad has found a home in the business world, Microsoft still has a big advantage over Google and Apple in the business market. To paraphrase James Carville, “It’s the server, stupid.” Microsoft’s backend infrastructure support, in the form of Windows Server 2008 R2 and Server 2012, gives Windows 8 and the versions that will follow it a leg-up on the thinner tablet alternatives. Windows 8's DirectAccess secure remote access, RemoteFX virtual desktop support, and Windows to Go capability builds on that advantage—leveraging Microsoft’s servers to allow users to boot and connect to server resources back in the office or somewhere in a hosted (or public Azure) cloud. And Microsoft’s vision of what the cloud is hews closer to what most companies are comfortable with—something they can control directly, run inside their own data center, and manage just like Windows everywhere else.

And that’s why Windows 8 is far from being a swan song; it's actually going to be a winner. It’s not revolutionary, it’s not entirely original, and it’s not exactly pretty. But it does give Microsoft a way to keep the PC in the game while playing to Windows’ biggest strength: the conservative nature of its installed base. Mark these words: in six years, Windows will still be dominating the personal computing world (Windows XP included).

445 Reader Comments

Sorry, but I disagree with the author's conclusion. I agree with the critics... the mish-mash of the two completely different user interfaces is staggering. I'm a developer and have been a Windows user for essentially two decades now and even *I* was lost when I tried out Windows 8. How do you think a "casual user" is going to respond to it? I think Windows 8 is going to mark the beginning of the downhill slope for Microsoft... at least when it comes to personal computers (desktops and laptops). Whether or not it will help them with mobile remains to be seen.

I guess we'll know in three months after this hotly-contested holiday season whether Microsoft has much of a future in the mobile space. If the Surface doesn't make significant inroads against iPad, and Windows Phone 8 flatlines as Windows Phone 7 has, Microsoft may be forced to concede defeat and retreat to their comfort zone.

Now, I don't doubt that Microsoft can carve out a profitable niche in the corporate desktop and server space, cruise on past glories and battles won in the 90s, but that would still represent a historically humiliating defeat for Microsoft and surely spell an end to Steve Ballmer's most mediocre of tenures.

Who knows what happens after that. I would like to point out though that Surface - especially the Intel one - is very PC like. Enough so that I would almost want to count it as "desktop Windows" in the consumer space.

It's still an opportunity. But that depends on what kind of impact 3rd party vendors like Valve have. Not everyone likes that MS is very obviously forcing a migration to a walled garden, so they'll be looking for alternatives.

If it doesn't happen, it'll simply be indicative of the damage that has been done by allowing Microsoft to acquire, and retain, a monopoly over the PC space. It'll remain stagnant and decline.

I'm struggling to find the purpose of this "feature," other than to use Ars as a means to beat Linux fans over the head about how ingrained Microsoft's monopoly is.

I have a question for sysadmins. Is Microsoft making any push for enterprises to adopt Windows 8 (now or even a year from now)? I am curious if Microsoft is just assuming enterprise will simply skip Windows 8 so there's no need to harmonize the desktop/Metro environments too much.

I don't really agree with the argumentation that, since power users are jarred by the wrapping that is the new interface around the desktop, casual users will be even more disturbed by it.I rather believe that casual users who aren't as invested in or used to a certain interface are more able to deal with a change.

I agree with the conclusion that Windows won't die out. Even a drop to 80% of the desktop market and a stagnation of it wouldn't mean the end of it.

It's still an opportunity. But that depends on what kind of impact 3rd party vendors like Valve have.

Valve will change nothing, and their linux initiative will be a flop, because no one is going to migrate to linux for gaming.

Windows 8 will have a future similar to Vista, though it will be more deserved this time. Forced UI unification is a disaster, and most of us using Win8 will just live in the desktop environment rather than run metro apps.

Funny how the author does not consider OSX as a viable haven to Windows XP suers. He doesn't even give it a second look. It has parity with Windows as far as major software titles. This fact does not even start to apply to Linux of any flavor.

If you frame the debate as Windows or Linux, then perhaps Windows will 'prevail'. But if you frame the debate as Windows or Android or OS X/iOS, what is put forward in this article become significant less relevant.

Worth noting that those NetMarketShare figures quoted show "other" operating systems increasing massively from 2.4% to 4% in the last 3 months.Edit: author replied on the next page that "other" includes Windows 8 preview versions.

Windows 8 makes a lot of sense when you use it on a device with a touch interface. This will mark the point in computer history where we transition to all devices being touch capable. It won't be smooth or quick, but it does make sense. Apple started a little with that "magic pad" thing they're trying to sell, but it makes more sense to do it in the screen, and they probably know it. It won't surprise me to find that their Mac refreshes next year involve touch screens.

Linux will need to figure out how to provide drivers for and interact with the multitouch displays that are now all over computers in stores.

Business will certainly stick to Windows 7 for now, while consumers work their way through the hybrid of "new" and "desktop", but Windows 9 will leave "desktop" even farther behind.

I have one last comment. If you take common models of disruptive innovations, it's amazing how quickly market leaders can go from leaders to collapse. Look at RIM. Even well after the iPhone was introduced, they still had good sales. And then bam, collapse.

Microsoft is making some right moves, but quoting strong sales and how competitors don't match them is the exact same trend as companies right before they lose everything. It's rationalization instead of recognition that the world has moved on from their product.

I'm not saying MS is going to collapse, but it wouldn't surprise me if they are an enterprise only company 5 years from now.

I've been using the preview, and now the final version of Windows 8 on my laptop - and I have to say, I just don't get it.

Why the hell was a tablet OS grafted on as the start menu? Don't get me wrong, the Windows 8 tablet OS might be the best damned flipping tablet OS ever made, I have no opinion on that. But on my laptop I tried, I mean, I've really tried to use it and like it, but yesterday I found myself trying desperately to hide out in desktop land only.

At first I was convinced I was just missing something, and eventually it would all make sense. Nope, it's a hot mess, and a total non-starter for corporate desktops. Either Microsoft, or some third party, will have to come out with a desktop only version of Windows 8 which puts the start menu back and replaces missing desktop functionality.

It's still an opportunity. But that depends on what kind of impact 3rd party vendors like Valve have.

Valve will change nothing, and their linux initiative will be a flop, because no one is going to migrate to linux for gaming.

People won't migrate to Linux FOR gaming, but they may remain on Windows for gaming while wanting to move to Linux (or even OS X) for other reasons. If that reason to stay on Windows is diminished, it will encourage people to switch.

It's still an opportunity. But that depends on what kind of impact 3rd party vendors like Valve have.

Valve will change nothing, and their linux initiative will be a flop, because no one is going to migrate to linux for gaming.

Not for gaming, necessarily. But how many people remain on Windows solely for games and do everything else on Linux? Who knows. I know, I'm wrong/idiotic/insane for even making the suggestion on Ars that Linux is anything other than shit but hey, I can hold out hope that there are some options on the PC other than the monopoly we have at the moment.

Windows 8 can't even transition its legacy programs on the ARM architecture. Linux can and has. Linux apps work seamlessly on both x86 and ARM architectures.

Windows RT can, see Office 2013. Microsoft has chosen to fobid that on Windiws RT. It remains to be seen if it's a good trade off to bolster the store. I for one wouldn't mind some desktop apps on my surface rt...

Well said. I think the thing that people forget, is that Microsoft has already won this game. The computer isn't necessarily the form factor we think of, and whatever our current "computers" shift into, with MS owning such a ridiculously massive market share, it is going to take decades for anybody to make a significant dent in their control.

Those 350 millions units a year sold for the last decade or so aren't going to just disappear overnight, even if suddenly next year they sell 0 (which is patently absurd or course).

Come next year, and we'll see if the people who claimed wintel is dead and gave advice to intel start building ARM processor are right or wrong.

I highly doubt that's why Intel is trying to get in on the ARM market.

that's not what I am saying.I believe people who predicted demise of intel will be proven wrong, especially, when haswell arrives next year. Microsoft will have a stronger case for windows 8 by then. They will have their ecosystem ready for intel cpu based tablet pcs. And intel will be on a good position as well. They will have an ecosystem ready.

Linux will need to figure out how to provide drivers for and interact with the multitouch displays that are now all over computers in stores.

Well, first those drivers have to be available. And this requires that the hardware vendors make the minimum amount of effort, either via a basic driver or by supplying specs. Very often they don't do either, which leaves things a mystery. But they're right there to support Windows, and as a result Microsoft is a benefactor of effort not put in for any other platform. That's the power of being dominant.

Windows 8 is a big change that people might not like, but people will stick with Windows because they don't like change.

This article completely ignores the most important argument against the future of Windows. We are moving slowly towards a time when the majority of people simply won't care at all which operating system they are using as more and more of the tools they use are in "the cloud".

Interesting to think and try to predict the future, but there are so many variables, any scenario has a high possibility of becoming realized. Who knows what new companies and technologies will force change on these giants, so it is hard to predict ahead.

I agree that Linux likely won't get a big boost. The typical consumer purchases a computer with an OS installed. If people don't like 8, OEMs will offer 7 as noted in the article. What's not noted is that they can also consider a Mac. There's never a better time to learn a new OS than when it's forced upon you in your normal upgrade path as well.

As a Windows 7 and OS X user, I am not really too happy about the direction that either one are taking. I suppose in this case, Apple's approach is currently more conservative in nature so I guess I prefer that approach for the time being. Both OS's are essentially moving towards the same goal, but I think that Apple rightly recognizes that the technology isn't quite there yet to be able to merge the desktop and mobile worlds in one device. Windows RT plain evidence of this.

As far as the future of Windows 8, I am not convinced that it's going to be a wild success and agree with the author that Windows 7 will be the future of business computing for the next 5-7 years. That should leave plenty of time for MS to tailor Windows 9 to the more mature technologies that will be available and produce a more cohesive experience. By that time Apple will have likely laid out their plans for OS convergence as well (can't speculate on Google), and there should be some good competition in the space with lots of ideas floating around.

For home users, I can only go with my gut instinct. I can remember begging my parents to let me upgrade our home PC for Windows 95, and have since run every following release. I'm happy with Windows 7 and have no desire to upgrade my home/business PC to Windows 8. I've yet to meet anyone with any interest in Windows 8, other than to say that it looks ugly.

The Linux lovers are doing what they always do. Ignoring the elephant in the room. The one that has been standing in the way of Linux from becoming a real alternative to Windows or Apple's OS. Software vendor support. Just because W8 is a hot mess it does not change this fact. The only way Linux could try and take advantage of the failings of W8 is if a large number of software vendors decided to suddenly start supporting Linux. That hasn't happened and I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future. Software vendors go where the money is which means the largest user base. That is the Windows user base. People have the option of going with Windows 8 or Windows 7. BOTH give users access to the same applications they know and need. Windows 8 is a stop-gap release. Mainly enthusiasts will be the ones using it and telling MS what needs fixed, what needs to be trashed, and what needs to be added. MS will reign as king of the desktop/laptop OS's for a very long time to come.

There will be more Android devices in the next few years than Windows devices world-wide. Windows keeps losing market share to Apple every year as well.

Valve is porting Steam and their games to Linux, and they're rumored to be developing a console that would directly compete with the next XBox.

Consider for a moment that in 2013, developing on an OpenGL engine would get PS4, Wii-U, Steam, PC, Mac OS X, Linux, iOS, Android and OUYA support.

A DirectX engine will only get you XBox and PC support.

Microsoft is alienating enterprise customers as more and more enterprise shops are embracing Apple. Google could start making the case for ChromeBooks in the enterprise market as well. You have Citrix servers for Windows apps, and secure workstations that are easy to manage and cheap to boot.

Combine that with a Windows 8 desktop experience that I think will really turn a lot of people off, and perhaps for the first time in my life, I think the tide could sincerely shift.

TL;DR;Windows 8 is a big change that people might not like, but people will stick with Windows because they don't like change.This article completely ignores the most important argument against the future of Windows. We are moving slowly towards a time when the majority of people simply won't care at all which operating system they are using as more and more of the tools they use are in "the cloud".

I agree. 10 years ago you relied on specific programs running on specific platforms to do useful work. This is still true to a point, but many tasks can now be accomplished with a simple browser or with cross platform apps that are available on Windows, OS X and mobile OSs.This is very important, because for the casual user, it is just good enough, and that is an important chunk of the Windows target demographics: casual, home users. Companies are another story, of course, we couldn't switch to Linux because we started investing on C# and msbuild and we use 3rd party software that only runs on Windows and a transition would be extremely painful.But my mum? She probably doesn't care as long as she can skype, send emails and edit the odd document here and there. She's the type of customer that Microsoft may lose in the near future.

The real question is developer adoption. If enough developers adapt/re-build the applications I use to work in the new UI, I would consider a surface/other winRT tablet to supplement my PC/replace my aging laptop. If not, I'll continue using a laptop/desktop combo, likely running win8 on the desktop/win7 on the laptop (I bought the upgrade to replace an old Vista install; it's mostly a gaming / tv-watching client with all my field work happening in the "real OS" on the laptop anyway.)

The question of cloud integration is an important one, but Google/Apple/MS have basically made platform dependence moot: all my email happens in Gmail, all my scheduling happens in Google's calendar, and any documents I *need* to share are on Google Drive. MS and Apple have competing platforms that work approximately as well, and they all support access from other platforms in a browser. If libreoffice were to integrate with a competing cloud platform, I would consider switching, but as it is I can do my work and share my files from any platform, to any platform, without considerable difficulty. This spells the death of Office as a must-have for people like students (.docx kept it relevant for a little while, but new compatibility in other suites is now in place making file format a non-issue), but it puts the spotlight on cloud integrated solutions: just as gmail won the webmail war by tweaking *just enough* of the old paradigm and offering compelling features in a clean, simple interface, whoever can attract the most users with new features/good integration and not push them away with restrictions or interface problems will win the "cloud office/storage" war. MS has the advantage on the pc, apple has the advantage on the phone, Android has a cross-platform edge with gmail but could easily become irrelevant.

The Linux lovers are doing what they always do. Ignoring the elephant in the room. The one that has been standing in the way of Linux from becoming a real alternative to Windows or Apple's OS. Software vendor support. Just because W8 is a hot mess it does not change this fact. The only way Linux could try and take advantage of the failings of W8 is if a large number of software vendors decided to suddenly start supporting Linux. That hasn't happened and I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future. Software vendors go where the money is which means the largest user base. That is the Windows user base. People have the option of going with Windows 8 or Windows 7. BOTH give users access to the same applications they know and need. Windows 8 is a stop-gap release. Mainly enthusiasts will be the ones using it and telling MS what needs fixed, what needs to be trashed, and what needs to be added. MS will reign as king of the desktop/laptop OS's for a very long time to come.

True for companies, but for home users? What software is not available on OS X/Linux that a family would require?

This article completely ignores the most important argument against the future of Windows. We are moving slowly towards a time when the majority of people simply won't care at all which operating system they are using as more and more of the tools they use are in "the cloud".

This must be why Chromebooks have been such a runaway success - people don't like having local storage and compute power.

It's still an opportunity. But that depends on what kind of impact 3rd party vendors like Valve have.

Valve will change nothing, and their linux initiative will be a flop, because no one is going to migrate to linux for gaming.

Not for gaming, necessarily. But how many people remain on Windows solely for games and do everything else on Linux? Who knows. I know, I'm wrong/idiotic/insane for even making the suggestion on Ars that Linux is anything other than shit but hey, I can hold out hope that there are some options on the PC other than the monopoly we have at the moment.

I didn't say, nor would I want to imply that Linux is a shit operating system, I just don't understand why Valve would focus resources on it as a gaming platform. I think most people use it as a development or server platform, there are some who use it as a workstation, but it's an insignificant minority, as the article graph points out.

I try some sort of a live distribution every now and then just to see what the desktop interface looks like, and it seems to migrate faster and more dramatically than Windows ever has (windows 8 excluded).

The point of the article is that no users are flocking to Linux as a result of Windows 8, and I think it's spot on.

What I think most people fail to see is that, whether they like it or not, Apple, Microsoft, Google and other companies are going to start pushing out more and more touch technology. It's inevitable. None of us have that decision. So maybe we have a few more years with a lot of non-touch alternatives but that's not gonna last forever.

I agree that Linux likely won't get a big boost. The typical consumer purchases a computer with an OS installed. If people don't like 8, OEMs will offer 7 as noted in the article. What's not noted is that they can also consider a Mac. There's never a better time to learn a new OS than when it's forced upon you in your normal upgrade path as well.

The problem with going to a Mac is the same problem Linux users face. the lack of mainstream applications and being forced to learn to use new applications. People tend to stick with what they know when it comes to their computers. Mac has always been an option and people have still stuck with Windows. Nothing has really changed. I have tried to move users who wold actually benefit from moving to Mac to switch to Mac. most refuse to go when they hear that I will not be able to fix their computers. That they will be forced to take their computers to the Apple store unless their computer is no longer supported by Apple.

Sean Gallagher / Sean is Ars Technica's IT Editor. A former Navy officer, systems administrator, and network systems integrator with 20 years of IT journalism experience, he lives and works in Baltimore, Maryland.